The blog of Nikolas Gvosdev--thoughts on U.S. foreign policy and world affairs--as observed from Newport, RI

Monday, November 13, 2006

The Myth of the Multilateral Force

I see that the myth of the multilateral force for Iraq has re-emerged. The idea is that the U.S. should solicit other countries to take over security for Iraq so American forces can leave. Sounds great, right?

What country wants to get involved in Iraq? As Stephen Biddle noted in tonight's Iraq roundtable, who is going to put on the blue helmets?

A short run-through of the countries where reliable sources have indicated the position of the respective governments to sending troops to Iraq:

Saying "multilateralism" is not a magic or kabbalistic phrase that produces automatic results. Why other governments--particularly other democracies--would want to get involved in the Iraq mess--the growing anger about which fueled the Democratic takeover of the Congress--is beyond me. Perhaps if there is "peace to keep" as one diplomat told me, then his government MIGHT consider contributng forces. Not before. Certainly not to assist a U.S. withdrawal in the next 18 months.

In Sep 2003 I argued that sending troops to post-Saddam Iraq is in India's interest: not merely because it is important for India-US relations, but also because India has more experience handling such a scenario.

In July-Sep 2003, this was being contemplated. But it did not happen. Both sides are to blame. Vajpayee's government did not have the political gumption to prevail over the Congress (led by Natwar Singh, who it turns out had taken oney from Saddam). But the Bush administration failed to offer Vajpayee something significant enough for him to present to voters.

I will still argue that a messy Iraq can hurt India, and anti-US sentiment translates to anti-Indian sentiment too. But now the cost of sending troops for the Indian government is even higher...Blue Helmets may sadly be the only option left.

The presence of Hindu troops in Iraq would have been even more of an affront to the Muslim sensibilities; it would have been a major provocation of Muslims by Inida.

The rest of the world is perfectly happy with US being bogged down in Iraq. The rest of the world wants not only to see US chastised and humbled but also weakened so that other state actors can increase their freedom of action.

The continution of the current situation in Iraq and the Anglo-American involvement are in the interests of Russia, China, India, Brazil and many many others.

The presence of Hindu troops in Iraq would have been even more of an affront to the Muslim sensibilities; it would have been a major provocation of Muslims by Inida.That's a statement repeated so often that it has come to be assumed to be true. It is a good excuse to justify not sending troops.

The rest of the world is perfectly happy with US being bogged down in Iraq. The rest of the world wants not only to see US chastised and humbled but also weakened so that other state actors can increase their freedom of action.

Perhaps that is true. But this assumes that a victory for radical Islam (or even for the "moderate" autocrats that rule much of the Muslim world, and presumably are US allies) is better. Can't speak for others, but that sounds like a bad idea from an Indian point of view.

The continution of the current situation in Iraq and the Anglo-American involvement are in the interests of Russia, China, India, Brazil and many many others. You could start by explaining why the rise of the Taliban (which is the other side of the situation you describe) is in India's interests.

India has 150 Million muslims that cheer the Pakistani cricket team against the Indian team; it is not politic for India to send troops to Iraq or any other Muslim state unless asked for by that state. Hindu troops would be considered for what they are: auxiliaries in a neo-Imperial adventure in Mesopotamia (just like 1920s).

As for your conflation of the so-called Radical Islam and Autoicrats; it is what it is a conflation.

Saddam was an autocrat but not a Muslim Radical. Khomeinin was a Muslim Radical but not an autocrat. And the leader of Hindu Fundamentalism (Vajpayee - sic.) did not have any problems with the leader of Shia Fundamentalism (Khamenei).

International relations is a zero-sum game. A weakened US will give more freedom of action to India and others.

About Me

I am a professor in the National Security Decision Making faculty of the Naval War College. I am a columnist at World Politics Review, a senior editor at The National Interest, and a contributing editor for the Atlantic Council's New Atlanticist policy blog. DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my own personal opinions and do not reflect the opinions or positions of the Naval War College, the U.S Navy, the U.S. government, or any other institution with which I am affiliated.